Because well written dystopian sci-fi is based on real human flaws (but projected into a speculative future).

I think the article is giving the oligarchs/criminals too much credit.

Let’s hope for the best, without dark ages, and who knows, perhaps we have novel tools too.

One example would be: Trans-Siberian Railway (1904)

Took 13 years to build.

Thanks.

Can’t say I agree though. I can’t think of any historical examples where a positive agenda in of itself made a difference.

One example would be industrialization at the end of the 19th century and the first part of the 20th century. One could argue it was far more disruptive of pre-industrial society (railroads, telegraph, radio, mass production) than the information age is now.

Clearly industrialization enabled mass benefits in society, but it took WW1/WW2 and the rise of uncompromising, brutal revolutionary regimes for societies to come to terms with pros and cons of industrial society and find a middle path of sorts (until the next disruption).

Let’s hope it doesn’t get to that point in our times. That being said, the current oligarch regime comes off as even more self assured than the beneficiaries of early industrial society (gilded age oligarch in the US, Romanov dynasty in Tsarist russia).

The current batch of oligarchs has the benefit of hindsight and yet they is no end to their hubris with Bezos talking about millions living in space and comically stupid projects like data centres in orbit and The Simpsons-style “block the sun” schemes to address climate change.

Only option is to not use Americans products and services.

America cannot be trusted. At the end of the day the current US administration is a mere symptom, not the root cause.

As another poster mentioned, there is far more similarity between Obama and Trump than most Americans would like to admit.

No disrespect to sane Americans. It is a disaster for global democracy that America has de facto transitioned to a chauvinistic oligarchy.

So yes, we need a positive vision for AI so we can deal with these problems

I am genuinely curious why you think we need a positive vision for AI.

I say this as someone who regularly uses LLMs for work (more as a supplement to web searching) and uses “AI” in other areas as well (low resolution video upscaling). There are also many other very interesting use cases (often specialized) that tend to be less publicized than LLM related stuff.

I still don’t see why we need a positive vision for AI.

From my perspective, “AI” is a tool, it’s not inherently positive or negative. But as things stand right now, the industry is dominated by oligarchs and conmen types (although they of course don’t have a monopoly in this area). But since we don’t really have a way to reign in the oligarchs (i.e. make them take responsibility for their actions), the discussion around positive vision almost seems irrelevant. Let’s say we do have a positive vision for AI (I am not even necessarily opposed to such a vision), but my question would be, so what?

Perhaps we are just talking about different things. :)

P.S. FWIW, I read your replies in this thread.

FWIW, from my last reading of their privacy policy, they openly stated that they do share PII with other companies who they consider to be their partners.

They claim that they don’t share PII with third parties “for their marketing purposes”.

That being said, you’re at the mercy of their definition of “partner” and interpretation of “for [the third party’s] marketing purposes”.

I should honestly just re-read their privacy policy (and the same for Google and Meta).

Their service line was growing much faster than hardware, it is a big part of their business. So their business model does depend on data collection.

The last time I read the Apple privacy policy it sounded like they pretty much collect everything and let themselves share this data with whoever they feel like.

There was a lot of calming language, but it didn’t sound convincing to me.

That being said, if you like the Apple ecosystem and UX, it’s a solid option.

I personally believe their statements about privacy are nothing more than PR.